Yawning Bread. June 2006

Lee Hsien Loong not impressed by democracy in Australia

    

  

 

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has jeopardised Singapore's relations with Australia for the sake of his own party politics. He made some rather undiplomatic remarks about Australian party leaders, in an attempt to tell Singaporeans why we should want a one-party system.

As you can see from the news article from 'Today' newspaper, he suggested that Australian Prime Minister John Howard and Opposition Leader Kim Beazley were irresponsible towards Australia by being consumed by petty political debate.

"You look at their politics in Australia between Howard and Beazley. All the time, Howard says something, Beazley says he got it wrong," the newspaper quoted Lee as saying.

The newspaper then reported that "Mr Lee also said that such party politics might lead to policies that are detrimental to the nation."

The Straits Times reported:

'Prime Minister Howard spends all his time dealing with this party politics. The result is you don't have a lot of time to worry about the long-term future,' Mr Lee said. 

-- Straits Times, 20 June 2006, Aussie
party politics behind stalemate: PM

 
This is a serious allegation. It is most unusual for a Prime Minister of one country to pass such comments about the competence and motives of government and parliamentary leaders in another country, particularly one whom we need as a friend.

 


Visiting Australia and New Zealand 
 
  

Moreover, if someone outside Singapore had made similar remarks about Lee and his government, they would no doubt be told that foreigners should not "interfere in our domestic politics."

Whether or not Howard and Beazley are good leaders is a separate matter on which Australians naturally have an opinion, but it is not the place of a foreign leader to make such remarks.

Besides antagonising Australian leaders, Lee has reinforced the view of Singaporeans as insensitive and arrogant.

And for what? For his own party politics.

The point Lee Hsien Loong was trying to make was this:

His visit to Australia and New Zealand has reinforced Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's belief that the one-party system in Singapore must continue -- and the same goes for the policy of placing Opposition-held wards at the end of the lift-upgrading queue.

-- 'Today' newspaper, 21 June 2006

 
What a noble sentiment for which we should ditch our relations with Australia.

 
Singapore Airlines won't get transpacific route

He was probably frustrated that Australia was not going to consider giving Singapore Airlines more freedom to fly between Australia and the United States.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong yesterday said Australia's party politics was holding up the opening up of its air services sector, to the detriment of its economy as a whole.

His observation sheds new light on an old stalemate between Singapore and Australia over the latter's refusal to grant Singapore Airlines access to the transpacific route.

Mr Lee said the opening up of this route to competition would hurt Australia's National Party, the minority partner in the ruling coalition under Prime Minister John Howard, who leads the Liberal Party.

The Nationals' core supporters live in the rural parts of Australia.

The party therefore has an interest in ensuring airlines' service to these far-flung areas, even though many of the routes are loss-making ones.

Qantas is one of the airlines providing these air services.

Mr Lee noted that any plan to open up the lucrative transpacific route to competition would likely lead to Qantas threatening to cut back on the non-economical routes to the Australian outback.

This would hurt the National Party's supporters.

'It's a very compelling argument. Is it good for the country? I think it's a net loss. What happens? That's the way the politics works,' he said.

-- Straits Times, 21 June 2006, Aussie
party politics behind stalemate: PM

 
So the National Party wants to serve their own supporters. How different is that from the People's Action Party giving upgrading of housing blocks to their own constituencies and denying it to opposition-held wards? How does Lee see himself holding the moral high ground to the point of criticising Australian leaders?

Is the provision of air services to the less populated areas a "net loss"? Perhaps Australians don't see it that way. Unlike the Singapore government, they may think twice about sacrificing the interests of sections of the population whenever there are foreign companies to be wooed.

But it's a good thing that Lee has now discovered exactly where the problem lies in negotiating a more liberal air services agreement, for the solution is now in sight. All it takes is for Singapore Airlines to offer to operate the "non-economical routes to the Australian outback".

Wouldn't that be fair? Surely, we don't expect the interests of these Australians to be sacrificed so that Singapore Airlines can fly between Australia and America and make bigger profits?

* * * * *

 
Coming back to the main point, not only is it distasteful for our Prime Minister to cast aspersions on the quality of governance in another country, once again an attempt is made to shape Singaporeans' thinking that our city is such a paradise and all other countries suffer from bad government.

But is Australia such a hell-hole? Why is their GDP per capita higher than ours? For a better assessment of Australia, maybe we should ask the tens of thousands of Singaporeans who have given up on this place and migrated down under for a better life. Maybe they know something our Prime Minister does not.

© Yawning Bread 

 

21 June 2006
'Today' newspaper

'Exciting' politics not always best for the people: PM Lee

by Loh Chee Kong in Auckland

His visit to Australia and New Zealand has reinforced Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's belief that the one-party system in Singapore must continue - and the same goes for the policy of placing Opposition-held wards at the end of the lift-upgrading queue.

Over the last nine days, Mr Lee met various leaders from the two countries, including Prime Ministers John Howard (Australia) and Helen Clark (New Zealand), as well as their respective opposition leaders, Mr Kim Beazley and Dr Don Brash.

And after having a more intimate look at their political systems, Mr Lee is convinced that while their no-holds barred arguments make for "more exciting" politics and "compulsively-viewable interviews", they do not necessarily result in more sound policies.

The end-product of rigorous parliamentary debates might not necessarily be for the good of the country, as such "endless debates are seldom about achieving a better grasp of the issue but to score political points", he commented.

Speaking to reporters as he wrapped up his visit, Mr Lee said "I think when you look at Australia and New Zealand and other countries with two-party systems or parliamentary democracies like us and elections in our politics, you will understand how different and unique the Singapore experience is.

"You look at their politics in Australia between Howard and Beazley. All the time, Howard says something, Beazley says he got it wrong. Beazley says something, (Howard) says 'You said something different last week or three years ago'.

"So ceaselessly, back and forth, whatever you do, I'll say you've done it wrong. If I can't find some (way) to be different from you, I will look for something else so as to establish my own brand name."

Mr Lee also said that such party politics might lead to policies that are detrimental to the nation. He pointed to the Australian government's decision to deny Singapore Airlines access to the trans-Pacific as an example.

"The National Party (Mr Howard's party's rural-based junior coalition partner) has certain interests - to look after the rural populations, to look after the towns and far-flung outbacks - and one of their interests is to have air services fly to all these places. It's not economical for airlines which provide those air services, (among which) includes Qantas.

"So, when you say you want to open the trans-Pacific route and run an open competition because it is good for Australia, Qantas then says 'Well, if you do that, we are going to have to cut back on all these non-economic routes. We are doing you a favour, doing national service.'"

But while the system might work for Australia because it is a diverse country with many different interest groups, Singapore's society is more homogeneous, with the Government also having "made sure that all the constituencies are mixed and integrated".

"In Singapore, we have 84 constituencies, but basically they are all more or less the same. You don't have a rural area, a city area. You don't have a very working class area versus a very upmarket area. We have made sure you don't have a Malay area or Indian constituency or Chinese constituency."

Because the People's Action Party (PAP) sees the whole of Singapore as a "natural constituency", it fights for all 84 seats during every election.

But the party's dominance in the political landscape has caused Singaporeans to "lose the perspective that party politics is party politics" - that people vote for a party not just because of national reasons, but because "it benefits himself or his community", said the Prime Minister.

"If we only talk about national interest and put it above party politics, in theory, that is ideal - but in reality, that's impossible," he said. "And that's why you end up having HDB priority (for lift upgrading) and a difference between the PAP and Opposition wards. It's necessary. Without that, the system cannot work.

"Because if we treat everybody the same ... the first thing the Opposition will say and has been saying is 'It doesn't matter. They'll have to take care of you anyway. Vote for us, you will still have a PAP government' - which was what (Workers' Party candidate) Sylvia Lim said during the elections.

"And that becomes a real problem because if everybody believes that, where are you going to produce that PAP government?"

But what about PAP supporters who stay in Opposition wards?

Said Mr Lee "We have no choice but to respect the wishes of the majority of the voters. We know that there are PAP supporters in Opposition wards. In PAP wards, there are also Opposition supporters. If you voted for an Opposition MP, you have to depend on him to work for you."

 

Footnotes

None

Addenda

None